On May 23, 2007, the White House, silently and without any fanfare, released an official White House photo of Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcoming their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, into the Cheney fold.

The beautiful little tyke weighed in at 8 lbs., 6 oz. and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley House in Washington, D.C.

What is extremely troubling is the official White House caption that appears underneath the photo on the official White House website:

... His parents are the Cheney's daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer.

Since when have two homosexual women been able to naturally procreate?

Fact is Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter - in one way or another - received a male's sperm. She is the biological mother, parent number one, and some man, somewhere out there, is Samuel David's real biological father, parent number two.

Unlike the official White House photo caption, a man and a woman, a Daddy and a Mommy, are Samuel David Cheney's REAL biological parents.

Then who is Heather Poe?

Heather Poe is Mary Cheney's live-in lesbian lover. She may act like a parent, she may treat the baby as a parent, she may love this baby with all of her heart, but in this reality we all live in, Heather Poe is NOT the baby's real parent. She has NO biological connection to the child whatsoever. Some man, the baby's real Daddy, is the child's other REAL parent.

If the Vice President and his wife Lynne are joining their daughter Mary in playing this homosexual game of "house," then all have chosen their roles and designated lesbian lover Heather Poe as the "Daddy."

Everyone knows there can only be one REAL biological Mommy. We are all grown adults. Playing "house" is a game for children, not for The White House or the Vice President and his wife.

What is so hypocritical of this Administration is its "double-speak."

President George W. Bush held several presses conferences calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the God-ordained institution of marriage between one man and one woman, while homosexuals pushed for the union of two men or two women to be equally recognized as real "marriage."

However, the President's number two, right hand man, Vice President Dick Cheney, clearly rebels against his superior, makes a public mockery of the President and the current Administration he is supposed to represent, and clearly holds to a different set of moral standards and beliefs.

When President Bush stood on the victory stage several years ago after being elected into office by values voters, Mary Cheney was on stage as well with her lesbian lover, Heather Poe. It was a slap in the face to the values voters who had just elected the duo into office. That wound has never healed.

While this little innocent child Samuel David Cheney deserves every fighting chance at life, the sins of two women, Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, have deliberately denied the Vice President's grandson one of the most basic human rights of all: the right to a Daddy and a Mommy.

I say shame on the White House, shame on the President and shame on the Vice President for allowing such a caption to be "officially" added onto the White House website and such a beautiful photo of two happy grandparents and their new grandchild.

I guess we can tragically and officially say both the White House and Bush Administration have officially recognized the sinful sexual unions of homosexuals, as well as recognized and embraced the tragedy of the social experiment of homosexual parenting.

We explained why we believed that children should have a mother and a father and told them that, should they go though with this, we would sue for custody of our grandchild.

Wow, I'm frankly just appalled by this. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and I simply cannot imagine telling my daughter that if I disagreed with choices she was making in her life I would try to steal her child. And while having a child raised by lesbians might not be ideal, neither would having a child raised by old grandparents. There's a reason for menopause.

I also have to point out that I think you're misinformed if you think a grandparent can simply go to court win custody of a child because they disagree with the lifestyle of the child's parents(s). You'd have to show some harm to the child, and I've never seen a case where the homosexuality of a parent alone is enough legally.

Yes, and Karl Rove's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), would be celebrated, but they aren't, and they've done a good job of balancing their beliefs with their career(s) and without it taking the spotlight off of what many supporters believe - I don't think I've met anybody truly alienated by Cheney's beliefs (although some do profess to being uncomfortable with his support of his daughter and such unions).

And while having a child raised by lesbians might not be ideal, neither would having a child raised by old grandparents.

Actually we were just 39 at the time. We are 47 now and raising a 3yo granddaughter that has cerebral palsy.

I also have to point out that I think you're misinformed if you think a grandparent can simply go to court win custody of a child because they disagree with the lifestyle of the child's parents(s).

Apparently you don't understand the concept of a bluff. I know how hard it is to get custody of any child no matter how bad the child's circumstance. Two of my 5 children are adopted and even though their parents were abusive neglecting and in prison, it still wasn't easy.

We were bluffing and it worked. We have no regrets for preventing a child from being raised by lesbians even if one of those lesbians is our daughter and even though that child would have been our grandchild.

57
posted on 05/30/2007 1:38:22 PM PDT
by Between the Lines
(I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)

The term “real” is not used to describe the sperm / egg donor parents any longer. It is “biological” or “birth”, versus “adoptive” or simple “parents”. “Real” is who raised you, who loves you, who sacrificed for you.

I have friends who have “snowflake babies” — children born from a frozen (then thawed) egg/sperm donors, then implanted into my friend. She is the “adoptive” and “birth” parent because she carried the child in her womb, and she and her husband did a legal “embryo adoption” through the courts.

Personally, I don’t at all agree with creating life this way as a believer in Jesus Christ. I don’t judge them for their choice, but I wish they would have quietly and confidentially taken this unconventional route without ever revealing to their children how they were conceived, bought, paid for, and adopted. She’s the birth mom — she (and husband) are “real” parents. It is creating too much identity crisis and confusion for them, IMHO.

I am my four children’s “real” and “adoptive” mother, and they remember well their own “biological” or “birth” parents, as they call them.

59
posted on 05/30/2007 1:50:28 PM PDT
by adopt4Him
(The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.)

well said — there isn’t. Grandparents have legal rights in most states for contact and visitation, but not to jerk a child out from a home that has immoral behavior, unless it shows harm to that child.

60
posted on 05/30/2007 1:52:55 PM PDT
by adopt4Him
(The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.)

Thank you for demonstrating that some people, gay or straight, should not be parents.....You are pathetic!

Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel. After all it is all about feelings, what is right for the child is irrelevant.

Do you have any gay children? If not, then what you think you would or wouldn't do in this case is just speculation and irrelevant. It is amazing how pious one can be when they themselves have not been tested.

But do please enlighten me as to what you would have done and if you can, do try not to make it sound like a leftist gay pamphlet on the subject.

This should be interesting.

62
posted on 05/30/2007 2:12:16 PM PDT
by Between the Lines
(I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)

Medical science is already making so much of this type of arguement moot.

From The Baltimore Sun, May 17, 2007 (excerpt)...

A baby conceived from an egg donated by one woman and implanted in another may have no mother at all under Maryland law, the state’s highest court ruled yesterday.

Issued more than four years after the matter was brought to the Court of Appeals, the 4-3 opinion creates blank spaces under “mother” in the birth certificates of twins born in 2001 at Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring.

The man who arranged for the children to be born from his sperm and donated eggs, and the woman with whom he arranged to carry them, brought the case. The two wanted it made clear that she had no legal claims or responsibility for the children.

(Snip)

“What had not been fathomed exists today,” Chief Judge Robert M. Bell wrote for the majority. “The methods by which people can produce children have changed.”

The ruling is pioneering because of its basis on the state’s Equal Rights Amendment: The court found that paternity laws apply equally to men and women.

(End of Excerpt)

An attorney friend of mine states rulings such as this chances leading to “gestating” literally becoming much more of a “for profit” industry - since there will be no chance the “gestation/birth” mother will ever be considered the “legal” mother and, therefore, have no responsibility for the child. We shall see.

63
posted on 05/30/2007 2:31:13 PM PDT
by DangerDanger
("I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan)

We went the open adoption route and it's been great. I was the Lamaze coach for the birth mother for my older son's birth. The biological mother's parents have become defacto grandparents for my boys - something they otherwise would not have had. We spend holidays with the biological family and even attend church together on occasion.

We told each of our boys at a young age about the adoptions and this has made our family stronger. Our boys know they were wanted and chosen. They would have figured out the adoption themselves anyway since they resemble their biological mother's family and don't look like my wife and me at all.

I'm happy that you were able to adopt as well. I'm sure you have found it as fulfilling as me or you wouldn't have done it four times.

Actually it has nothing to do with gay or straight in this case. It is simply a matter of a parent who is so much of a control freak as to deprive thier own child of the joy of parenthood. Your daughter would have been justified in moving away from you, birthing a beautiful child, and never even telling you about it. What really steames me is the self satisfied undertone you use when you tell your agonizing story. My prayers are with your daughter and the rest of your family whom I presume you have bullied as well.

Yes, the woman is doing what an aunt or a family friend who lives with the mother might do. Yes, she is parenting, but she represents a whole new kind of social relationship and it is a relationship I think immoral. What bothers me the most is that some are now saying that I ought not to say that it is immprtal, that I have no right to say this.

Wow... all I can say is wow... You sat your child, who you claim to love, down and blatantly threatened her with stealing her child from her because you don’t agree with her lifestyle. The hatred there is alarming. Having been in a similar situation with my own family, I feel I should let you know what exactly your daughter felt when you told her that. It’s hard to put into words the soul wrenching agony such statements from a parent put a child through, but I will attempt to explain. Imagine a white hot knife, the largest knife you’ve ever held. Now, imagine someone stabbing you with that blade, then twisting it violently before ripping it out. That’s what it feels like to a child every time they hear ‘I love you, but not what you do.’ What those words really mean is ‘I love you, even though you’re not good enough for me.’ I can only imagine that such an outright threat would be even worse. You celebrate your daughter not having children, I would bet your daughter cries that her parents would make such a hate filled statement to her.

I do have to wonder what these people have to say to the countless adopted children out there. All the ones that are now in good, loving homes. I’d love to see them go up to a friend of mine and try to tell her the kid she fought so hard to adopt and loves with all her heart isn’t hers just because she didn’t give birth to him.

That’s what it feels like to a child every time they hear ‘I love you, but not what you do.’

BS. If loving a person is conditional to approving all of their actions then you could never really love anyone, because it is impossible to be in complete agreement with every action. Unconditional love requires us to separate the person from their actions.

I would bet your daughter cries that her parents would make such a hate filled statement to her.

I have no doubt that she agonized and cried over this. But she is a big girl and able to defend herself. In all of the negative posts to me about this, not one even hinted at what would be best for the child or how the child will feel growing up with two mommies. No, every single one of them dealt with only how my daughter or how they themselves felt.

My concerns were only for an unborn child, yours is only for the right to do whatever we want with no thought for consequences.

74
posted on 06/04/2007 2:03:55 PM PDT
by Between the Lines
(I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)

Normalizing such behavior as is the case with the Cheny’s, causes young people to become deceived into thinking this behavior is ok, natural and accepted.

It is not.

Homosexual behaviors lead to social decay just as drugs, pedophilia, adultery and do forth.

Someone like the Vice President should keep such things under wraps within his household, not promoting it as a social norm.

For instance, would you care if our next president was someone who engaged in polygamy at one time? Even though he does not practice it now, he still is an open supporter of polygamy.

In fact, at a commencement speech full of young people, hints to the crowd that taking on two wives is really ok and that society will soon accept the practice, so be diligent and keep up the good work!

That’s absurd. The same goes with two homosexuals getting married and raising a child.......breeds social decay.

Because innocent children are involved. I dont buy the liberal talking point that two S&M leather daddies can raise up a young boy without screwing up his mind. Its just common sense.

And S&M leather mommies and daddies will screw up kids just as surely. Your point being?

Any time the homosexual degenerates try to hurt impressionable children by immersing them in the homosexual lifestyle, people of faith take exception.

What about the "divorced lifestyle"? My Bible condemns divorce. It condemns alcoholism. It condemns moneygrubbing. It condemns a whole lot of things that aren't the government's business - even if it's "for the children."

82
posted on 06/04/2007 2:56:18 PM PDT
by jude24
(Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")

Oh, please! Give the Bush bashing a rest! The White House is simply acknowledging that the Cheneys have a new grandchild. I’m sure the Cheneys are happy to have him, regardless of the lack of marital status of their daughter.

Cheney isn't the slightest bit out line with White House policy, which has never expressed the slightest animus towards homosexuals, homosexuality, or the non-biological partner in a gay couple with a child acting as a parent to the child.

There is a White House policy that legal marriage should not be restricted to one man and one woman, and there's no evidence Cheney doesn't support that.

There is also a Solicitor General view, presumably approved by the White House, that the Constitution doesn't mandate civil rights (marriage or otherwise) for homosexuals per se. However, that view doesn't arise out any policy animus towards homosexuals, but out of a generally strict-constructionist view that it is undemocratic to read substantively new rights, plainly alien to the framers' intent and understanding, into the Constitution and thus out of the public debate. It is the same view that would seek to strike down Roe and seek to preserve the death penalty against those who have the Supreme Court ban it by judicial fiat.

Generalization beyond those narrow policies was never justified. And it's not like there's going to be any change in the next Republican administration. McCain, whose gay ex-staffer died heroically on Flight 93, Giuliani (enough said), Thompson (long time actor), and Romney (globe trotting corporate leader)? Not a one of them cares a whit for the anti-gay agenda.

And I (and plenty of others) are sick and tired of the lemming like march off the cliff led the so-called moral relativists (and dragging the rest of us along with you). Your use of the word “Taliban wing” of the Republican party is very telling.

All we want is to get the government OUT of the business of promoting sexual deviance and indeed, forcing it down out throats via judicial activism and legislative kowtowing to the homosexual activists and their assistants.

A very few generations ago all the homosexual agenda didn’t exist, laws prohibiting sodomy, sexual deviance, and contributing to the deliquence of a minor were all on the books, and no one was compared to the Taliban.

This Taliban reference outs you as either a social liberal, liberal-tarian, or homosexual rights purveyor.

And, btw, there IS relevance in comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, as one third or more of all child molestation is same sex.

Nice try.

86
posted on 06/04/2007 3:34:27 PM PDT
by little jeremiah
(Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)

Because they make it our damned business. If they kept it behind closed doors, no one would know or care. But since they don’t keep it to themselves, and have publicly stated that they are out to change the entire world to suit them, they have MADE it our business.

As if you didn’t know that. You’re either part of the problem, or very, very young.

87
posted on 06/04/2007 3:36:35 PM PDT
by little jeremiah
(Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)

I don’t think the White House recognizes homosexual unions and parenting. The policies of the Bush Administration have stood for marriage between one man and one woman. However, it’s a standard policy to release pictures of the new grandkids. That was all they were doing. I do feel sorry for the child because the child was purposefully deprived of a mother and father, and that is just not fair, imo. Plus, both these women are not his parents. A child has one mother and one father. In adoption, a new mother and father may take on the role of parenting, but that is a different situation than two women or two men. This child will also have a distorted view of morality. I am hoping Dick Cheney will be a father like figure to this little boy if his health holds up. Dick Cheney seems to support homosexual marriage, though, and it is most likely the child will grow up supporting it too.

No thanx, you can have the anything goes / if it feels good do it / Im good-your good mentality.

Never said that. What I said is that there are a lot of things Christians consider immoral that are none of the government's business.

Don't quote proof-texts to me - you will look in vain in the entire New Testament for anything remotely suggesting that the government is intended to be the enforcer of public morality. Just because I do not buy into your Focus on the Family propaganda doesn't mean I don't take Christianity and Christian morality seriously - but those are questions for internal catechesis, not external kulturkampfs.

92
posted on 06/04/2007 8:41:57 PM PDT
by jude24
(Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.